Horwill, J.

1. All the petitioners entered into a forest which had been leased to the complainant and cut certain trees. They were all tried together, although separate charges were framed with regard to two sets of the accused who were cutting trees in different parts of the same forest. They have all been convicted. In this petition it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there was a misjoinder of persons and that the conviction is therefore illegal and should be set aside.

2. Although the matter was taken in appeal, neither of the Courts say that there was any intention or object common to the two sets of persons cutting trees in different parts of the forest; so that I agree with the learned advocate for the petitioners--as well as with the learned Public Prosecutor--that there was a misjoinder of parties. Mr. V.T. Rangaswami Aiyangar for the complainant contends that there was no misjoinder and quotes Sambasiva Mudali In re (1930) 35 L.W. 98 but it is clear from the judgment in that case that Pandalai, J., was satisfied that the two acts complained of--although on different dates--were parts of the same transaction and that the object on the two occasions was the